Talk:Troika (driving)

Another troika image if we need one later: File:ChelmonskiJozef.1883.NapadWilkow.jpg. Montanabw (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Orban and agral
I'm assuming that these very unusual words are meant to be "urban" and "rural," so I have changed them. I also changed "religional" to "religious." If I'm incorrect, please change them back, but use more familiar words. Lou Sander (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, you're right with them, thanks. Shouldn't be translating articles at 1:00 in the morning 9_9;; Pitke (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At least you can translate! I admire that!   Montanabw (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah, it was pain, being both formal langauge and a topic totally unknown for me as in my French... Pitke (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Answers to hidden notes
''The troika developed in Russia during the 17th century. It was used travelling between horse changing posts.<--huh?? "horse changing posts?" -->''
 * I imagine these are stations not unlike... wait... Um. In Finland we had a "kievari" system where road-side inns or taverns would keep horses at ready so that when a traveler came by he could have his tired horses changed to rested ones. I'm not sure if the UK ever had these, but apparently France did (as the term relais de poste had a proper article and all); and so did Russia. This is what I meant with the translation.

''During the Russian Empire, the upper classes would use a troika driven by a livery-clad postilion.<-- Presumably the postillion rode the middle horse? --> ''
 * I could not tell as the original text says nothing about this.

''Prior to this time, it was forbidden to use a three-horse combination for groups of less than three people; a single person had the right to only drive a single horse or a pair.<-- The troika only developed in the 17th century when it became legal for one person, but what was it that was legal for three or more people before this...? And what was legal for two people?-->''
 * The text clearly tells that three-horse combinations were only permitted for groups that had three or more people. It does not make claims as to if four horses or more could be used by even larger groups. I'll add the two people thing now, based on the French version. Pitke (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You may have to do some research to fill in the blanks as I think something is lost in translation. I am not sure what the Russian system was named, but I am familiar with your concept akin to kievari, though in the US we don't really have a name, other than "stages."  (Maybe Richard can add to what was in the UK)  In the US, a single company might own multiple teams of horses that were traded off at a stage stop (I'm thinking Wells Fargo and various stagecoach companies),or the rider example of the pony express but for ordinary people traveling with their own teams, there was no true swapping-out system -- there was a livery stable system, where people could rest their own animals, and if they were worn-out, they could sell a team, usually at a loss, to get a replacement.   "Postillion" here implies a rider... the number of people in a horse-drawn vehicle a law of Russia for how long?  and why?  (Seems completely illogical when hauling freight, for example).  Another problem is use:  For example, "handsome" in regard to horses is an archaic use in English, and rather meaningless except sometimes in reference to a breeding stallion ...  and the opposite is "ugly," which is not quite what I think was meant here.  And the other problem with English wiki is that while translations are always welcome, one wiki is not a "source" for another wiki and thus as such the content is potentially to be challenged (which is also why the ref tag is there.)  I'll tweak again.   Montanabw (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What I mean by "not very handsome" here really is "on the ugly side", or "common-looking" in its not-so-nice meaning, because the French version literally says "not good-looking", and I thought that "not very handsome" would portray the meaning of a horse that necessarily does not have a face like a boot, but is not a sight for the sore eyes either. Pitke (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Plain" usually is the nice way to describe these animals. If that will work, plug it in.   Montanabw (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)